I find it funny that so many members of the environmental movement think it would be better to take resources from where the costs of production are lesser per unit of output, and move them to where the costs of production are greater per unit of output, thus increasing both the use of natural resources and poverty at one stroke.

By the way Leigh, the globe is not warming and all the computer models that predicted so are wrong. It’s getting cooler.

Wing Ah Ling
So please explain how the last 10 years were the hottest on record? and significantly hotter than the previous 10 years according to the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index from NASA.
And why the graph is clearly showing a rise over the last 120 years.

"Australia's largest-ever engineering project would spur social and economic development and benefit the cities and rural communities of Australia's southeast for generations. Without fanfare or media attention, Australia forgot to acknowledge a significant moment in our nation's history."
The Snowy Mountains scheme was an economic disaster. A nation crying out for development after WW2 blew massive resources on constructing dams, tunnels and irrigation canals. Irrigation farmers were never charged the full resource costs of supplying their farms with water resulting in crazy irrigation practices and massive environmental damage.

I sympathise with the use of the Snowy symbol, in part because the full cost represented about one eighth of GDP in the year the scheme was launched: that was ambitious! Yes, we do need that kind of thinking again.

But we could get our language right? Climate change isn't a 'new challenge'. It has faced both indigenous and more recent human beings on this continent from the beginning. And who are these 'climate change advocates', and what are they advocating? This is sloppy stuff.

Remember that the Snowy scheme took the best part of 25 years to complete. If we are going to spend this kind of money over that kind of time it would be good to have a much better grasp of what actually is happening with our climate than we have at the moment. After all, the steady growth in carbon dioxide production continues, but global average temperature doesn't seem to be following suit. Are you sure that you know what is going on? If you are — why?

NIMBYism would prevent the Snowy Mountains Scheme from being build today but in hindsight we are grateful it was built. That pesky rainfall decline in spite of Global Cooling means that the scheme may have a new role as a giant battery. When wind farms are going flat out electricity could be used to pump water from the hydro outfall back up to the lake. Use as needed in dry or less windy weather.

A slight problem with Flannery's idea is that dry rock geothermal has so far turned out to be a dud. I think he hit the nail on the head when he said population should move to be near the water, not vice versa. Another difference relative to the Snowy Mountains Scheme is that the return on investment or speed of payback will now be inadequate by former benchmarks. I suspect we now need to go the opposite way to grand projects by going small scale and local. The capital may be easier to find that way.

Coolists I hope you will have your explanations ready after the El Nino summer.

"climate change advocate" - one who advocates for climate change.

Redundant, the climate has always changed.

The author seems new to the idea "Today Australia faces new challenges: our climate is changing."

It's warming now, it may cool later, whatever happens we have to adapt.

People touting various solutions should all have their motivations and source of funding examined. Just in case they are making money out of it for Speaking Engagements, participating in conferences, selling books, getting research grants etc, we should weigh that up when we hear their interesting opinions.

Whether you agree with the author on climate change or not - and I most emphatically do not - you have a problem in that Australia is a flat, dry place. Not many places for Snowy Mountain schemes.
Now a alternative energy network probably does need all that investment to be of any use at all in cutting emissions - wind farms by themselves will be of only slight use in cutting emissions - but we would have to spend a lot in emissions to put that network in place.

"NIMBYism would prevent the Snowy Mountains Scheme from being build today but in hindsight we are grateful it was built."
Why are you grateful the Scheme was built?

@blairbar the Snowy Scheme generates $5bn in additional irrigated agriculture and supplies 3.5% of mainland Australia's electricity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme
How could that easily be replaced? The water couldn't come from bores or desal plants and it would probably take more than a thousand widely separated wind turbines to generate that average power.

With the exception of blairbar’s remarks, all of these comments seem to have missed the point the author is making. That is, 60 years ago the philosophy of government and the Australian people allowed a large government driven project such as the Snowy Mountain Scheme to become a reality. Now, in the face of immense challenges presented by climate change, the Federal Government has resorted to weak market based mechanisms that do not inspire, let alone effectively address the complex, systemic nature of the climate challenge.

Like the snowy scheme, the cost of government investment in renewable infrastructure is of critical importance. But the benefits of such an endeavour also need to be equally considered. Compared with the proposed emissions trading scheme, direct government investment in renewable infrastructure can lay the groundwork necessary for industry to feel confident to invest in renewable energy and plays a key role in making these renewable technologies commercially viable.

Now that human induced climate change is scientific fact, the debate over what to do has focused on setting adequate targets. What we need is action to achieve those targets. And, like the author makes clear, the most effective, inspiring medium-term action lies in nation building government driven investment in renewable energy and associated infrastructure

One reason why the Howard Govt would not have been actively pursuing a major infrastructure program in 2006 is that would not of been anyone to build it.
Major projects in the Pilbara and the Bowen Basin sucked up so many skilled people that we had to import workers on 456 visa's to keep the major cities working.
Private enterprise was building a couple of Snowy scheme equivalents in WA and Qld in the extractive industries.
All that would of happened if the Fed's had opened the public purse would have been a huge inflationary push as public servants tried to feather bed the jobs in a time of a tight employment market.
The time for govt to build these major projects is when there is a shortage of jobs, like now.
With regard to the Snowy Scheme's environmental impact, remember that before it was built there was high country grazing on snow leases.
With the coming of the SMHS the vast bulk of the catchment was converted to national park.
For the cost of the small area that has been disturbed by dams, roads and powerlines there is the benefit of having cattle removed from the rest of the high country.
This is apart from allowing the option of more water for the Murray Darling and opening the high country as a play ground for jaded city dwellers.
A little pain for much gain.
PeterA, there are six recognised global average temperature records of which NASA's GISS is but one and Jim Hansen certainly has his own axe to grind with his GISS temps.
The rest show declining average temp's since 1998.

The Destructive Methods of Mankind

It is incredible how many contributors to Online Opinion appear to believe that mankind cannot do harm to our planet?

The very fact that Nature had grown forests and vegetation to make use of carbon waste, should know that mankind was on the way to destroy the globe ever since the beginning of industrial mechanisation.

Big Gore Al - "creator" of the internet, offsetter of his carbon emissions with payment to his own company (nice) - is starting to sound dated, even to this old "climate change advocate". He says it's hard to ignore the stronger cyclones. Er, no Al. It's hard to notice them. There was a big one called Tracy in '74 toward the end of a 30 year cooling when scientists were worried about the coming Ice Age. Bushfires, floods - been around for a while now. You might have read about them in the Bible. But humanity has been swallowed up like Noah in a perceptual conjuring trick that would impress David Copperfield. Tricks of language, tricks of data, tricks of perception. Big Gore Al, the biggest evangelist con man to ever grace our shores.

Cooling since 1998? Rubbish. Even taking such an extreme outlier as the start point, (why start at 1998 when the records go way back before then if not to mislead) the globe still shows warming since, but using it as a start point is deliberately misleading and those who claim it as evidence of cooling are either mistaken or attempting to mislead.

An extreme hot year in a rising trend is the foundation of arguments that the globe is cooling? Seriously? It's nonsense and more and more people recognize it for nonsense.

Why prefer CRU over GISS ( which shows 2005 as the hottest year) ? GISS includes the fastest warming region of the planet - the Arctic - and CRU doesn't. Did they mention that very significant fact when insisting 1998 was the hottest year on record? Why not if not to deceive? Of course it's better to make use of every measure available whilst taking into account their limitations and that's what climate scientists do when they do an IPCC report (again, not mentioned by the disbelievers). Multiple graphs of multiple independent measures all show clear warming trends even from that unusually hot year of 1998 and that trend would look stronger still if ENSO were adjusted for.

Bluntly put, the disbelievers are wrong and climate science consistently shows them to be wrong. Only by getting people to not look to accredited expert sources can such blatant deception be believed and maintained. Plenty of evidence of that here.

None of their sources is capable of demonstrating the scientific basis of their conclusions (more properly their delusions) to the scientific community or they would have - and shifted the scientific debate. They can't and haven't and aim to persuade the uninformed instead.

Pathetic

Choosing 1998 is stupid.

Why not choose 1910 or 1950 or 1966 as they were cool years.

Anyway picking out the last few years is pathetic, the trend is up.

It is like saying today is cooler than the day before and we are cooling - as we go into summer.

The last 10 years were still the hottest.

to Ken and Peter

What puzzles me is your certainty. I've looked at the graphs too, and I wouldn't say that they show either cooling or warming. But what we could say is that a twenty-year fairly steady rise after 1975 has been followed by relative stability since 2000. Since the steady rise is said to have been caused by increased CO2, what explains the apparent stasis in the last decade? If it's the inherent variability in the system, how much of the warming after 1975 could also be explained by similar inherent variability? Going back earlier, what explained the comparable rise in the inter-war period, and the cooling or relative stability before 1975? Was that all variability?

There may be something in the AGW proposition, but you'd have to say that the evidence is spotty at best. And if we are going to radically change our way of life, I'd like much stronger evidence before I gave up coal-fired electricity, my petrol-powered car and the opportunity to see children overseas.

Well said Don, calmy and sensibly, in front of the angry sneering mob who insist on sites and references so they can cross reference to "how to deal with sceptic" sites I'm guessing.

It is getting frantic on that side of the debate, I don't see that level of anger or adhominem attacks on the sceptics side.

I heard a rumour today that the site RealClimate is now admiting that the temperature has plateaued and they are not sure why, but evidently it will continue again to rise in the future.

The models didn't predict that did they? So do they have ESP?

Could be just rumourmongery though, the papers and the web are so often wrong.

Doesthe AGW believer side here seem to believe their own pitch about CO2 or is it just a general hatred of everyone else and consumerism.

Me too Don, I like to travel and do things that require much electricty and fossil fuels. Some businesses run on electricty, we have lots of computers and there is no way we would sign up to unreliable hobby level sources of energy just to please the loud ones in this supposed debate.

Hear, hear.. this has been gone over so many times in these sessions. To answer one question, why not use the Goddard centre temperature record, which shows the peak at 2005 is that there have been very nasty allegations online that Hansen (who runs the centre) has been fiddling the results. The authorative instrument site is Hadley which shows the peak at 1998, as does the other three centres - including the two satelite centres that track these things..
But none of that is very important.. the sequence is a major phase of warming from the mid-70s up to around the turn of the century.. stablity for a few years and then (so far) slight cooling. This is now widely admitted, and the IPCC says the warming before the 1940s was natural. Now the argument has moved onto the heat content of the oceans, which still doesn't show what the AGWers want but that's wher ethe argument is now..

Don

Exactly who (or what bodies or institutions) are asking you/us to embark on this radical change of life - the giving up of coal-fired electricity, your petrol-powered car and the opportunity to see your children overseas?

Q&A:

The IPCC message, in both TAR and 4AR, is that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will be disastrous. Kyoto and the coming Copenhagen meeting have been about preventing this occurring. For that goal to succeed there would have to be a great reduction in our use of fossil fuels, which would be likely to have such effects. Who else? Hansen of GISS (for whom coal on trains represents 'death trains'), many of those who write essays and article on how to 'fix' climate change, the more extreme Green commentators, and all those who talk airily of the need to get rid of coal and oil and replace them with solar, wind, geothermal or whatever.

As I have said before, I am in favour of moving away from a dependence on oil, for the good reason that it is a finite resource that will become more expensive when the world economy expands again. I also think we need to manage water much better than we do. But these things are worth doing whether or not AGW is sensible.

That’s true Don, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 385 to 770 ppm would be disastrous, as the IPCC has said. However, what the UNFCCC are aiming for is 450 - 550 ppm (max) – this is not a doubling.

You would be aware of the reports given by Sir Nicholas Stern and Professor Garnaut (on their economic impact analyses of the IPCC report). They do not assert we would have to give up of coal-fired electricity, our petrol-powered car or the opportunity to see our children overseas.

The UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen will try to have post-Kyoto goals put in place to limit our expected rise in temperatures to 2 degrees C by 2100. It will be intriguing to see the differing politico-econometrics play out, I am not optimistic.

Jim Hansen is an extremist (and very good at metaphor), as are some others you only allude to. Do you really think that the decision makers of this world are going to take all that the extremists say on board?

Don, there are extremists on both sides. People who don’t know you better could say you are an extremist from the other end of the spectrum. We will not have to give up of coal-fired electricity, our petrol-powered car or the opportunity to see our children overseas – that is just scare mongering like Hansen.

But, despite what the UNFCCC is aiming for, neither India nor China is prepared to follow suit, and unless they both do, on current projections atmospheric CO2 will pass the target. I see no evidence of a past tipping point, and the argument for it is metaphorical. As CO2 rises, and nothing is done, the extremists will raise their voices and the extreme views will have more traction — unless, of course, cooling has set in and the AGW alarm is put to rest until the next warming phase.

And I have an objection to doing things which on the face of them have no impact on global warming but cost us all. For me, AGW is the Great Distractor. And I thought Garnaut's language on parts was akin to the pulpit. I don't recall the same intemperance in Stern, but it's a while since I read it. And neither thought it was their business to pay due diligence to ascertaining how far the IPCC's prognostications were likely to be correct!

Yes Don, AGW is a distractor. We should be directing our efforts to sustainability (the world does not end in 2100). This in itself would treat the ‘symptom’ of human endeavour. The role India and China play is crucial, they must come on board – time will tell. I hope Clinton and Chu are earning their keep. It's worth noting that China is doing more than the US or Australia in adapting to, and mitigation against, global warming (their sheer numbers put them at a disadvantage). I have my doubts about Canada and to some extent, Japan and New Zealand.

In another thread, we shared thoughts about Noel Keenleyside's work (I don’t think they were pursued). In geologic time, we are heading for another ice age (many 1000’s of years away). In our own time, the temperature trend is up, despite natural and regional variation. If we are to grow/develop in a more sustainable way, we should start adapting now (which will take decades). It would also be prudent to take a responsible and measured approach to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. People who think this will not, or should not, cost us anything are deluding only themselves.

My only real criticism of the IPCC is its reliance on the (dated) Special Report on Emission Scenarios. I am of the understanding that the formulation of the SRES was largely done by econometricians. I am also of the understanding that when AR5 is released (in 2014) more advanced economic modeling will be utilised. The IPCC’s projections (prognostications?) can only be evaluated in hindcast. Suffice to say that hindcasts have been reasonably good, despite natural variations in climate that can be attributed to volcanos and ENSO/PDO, for example.